I simply meant that if you can't relate to the kind of music The Stones, The Beatles et al related to as teenagers (and returned to repeatedly throughout their careers), how can you relate to their joy at hearing it in the mid-50s for the first time, their complete obsession with it, and their subsequent channelling of it into their own recordings in the 60s?

I simply meant that if you can't relate to the kind of music The Stones, The Beatles et al related to as teenagers (and returned to repeatedly throughout their careers), how can you relate to their joy at hearing it in the mid-50s for the first time, their complete obsession with it, and their subsequent channelling of it into their own recordings in the 60s?

NOT an insult, a perfectly reasonable comment.

Im not touchy, I get irritated sometimes by people who just keep going on and on about the same thing in every post in every thread they post in. (not that Ive come across many)

The way I see it that statement is derogatory, you are suggesting I cant relate to music of the 50's, this of course is complete hogwash, like a lot of your 'statements' I am 61 years old and have been a music fan since I could sit on a toilet, I love music, I am a musician, I have done hundreds and hundreds of gigs, both in bands and as a solo performer, I have recorded a whole album of original music playing all the instruments, just the idea of me not being able to relate to 50's popular music I find very insulting.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, you think music of the 70's and later is crap compared to the 60's, you think artists like David Bowie, Neil Youngs solo career, Pink Floyd, ELO, The Eagles etc etc etc were no good, ok thats fine I have no problem with you having that opinion ......its just you seem to say it all the bloody time, now you had a go at me which annoyed me and Im now retaliating, but I dont want to keep going on about this (irony) so lets change the subject.

Ive been listening to Maxwell and Ive decided I like it, sorry Paul, its a great song, George is great, so is Ringo. There you go I havent listened to it for 25 years and Ive changed my mind about it

No offence taken at all zipp. It's not my favourite song but I do like it.... someone mentioned John's hypocrisy at slating "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" then presenting stuff like "Mean Mister Mustard" but truth be told John was openly dismissive of Abbey Road side two which he called "pop opera". "Mean Mister Mustard" and "Polythene Pam" were half finished scribbles that John came up with in India, I don't think he had much time for them, he never did have much patience with those "fictional character" songs which Paul so excelled at. John preferred to write from within about himself, he couldn't bear to seriously promote something as detached as, say, "Another Day" about some imaginary person posting letters or falling asleep on a bus or whatever. Shame really, some of this frivolity might have counterbalanced some of the raw intensity he was so adept at. And those snippets from India on side two of Abbey Road prove he could do it, even if he did find it very twee.

Logged

nimrod

No offence taken at all zipp. It's not my favourite song but I do like it.... someone mentioned John's hypocrisy at slating "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" then presenting stuff like "Mean Mister Mustard" but truth be told John was openly dismissive of Abbey Road side two which he called "pop opera". "Mean Mister Mustard" and "Polythene Pam" were half finished scribbles that John came up with in India, I don't think he had much time for them, he never did have much patience with those "fictional character" songs which Paul so excelled at. John preferred to write from within about himself, he couldn't bear to seriously promote something as detached as, say, "Another Day" about some imaginary person posting letters or falling asleep on a bus or whatever. Shame really, some of this frivolity might have counterbalanced some of the raw intensity he was so adept at. And those snippets from India on side two of Abbey Road prove he could do it, even if he did find it very twee.

Good points Mr Mustard but I slightly disagree with you...."fictional character" songs

'The King of marigold was in the kitchen cooking breakfast for the Queen"

I would agree nim that John sometimes populated his songs with the occasional (usually outlandish/incredible) character but you'll notice they usually tended to make brief - sometimes fleeting (a single line) - cameo appearances, whereas Paul could construct an entire song about someone else (often believable/mundane personalities) and the minutiae of their lives, however bleak or humdrum ("Eleanor Rigby", "Another Day", "She's Leaving Home", "Mr Bellamy" etc). John's characters were often just a passport into a realm of free association stream of consciousness which left the character itself behind ("Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds").

Off the top of my head I cannot readily call to mind any complete self contained story in the third person penned by John, unless you consider those disguised real life examples (we all know "Sexy Sadie" was really the Maharishi - even Mr Kite had been a real circus act and the song was simply cribbed off a poster in a moment of boredom)... as Lennon himself once pointed out: "I write about me because I know me." Perhaps "Mustard" and "Pam" were the closest he came to fleshing out dreamt up people, and whilst he seemed to dismiss them as fillers it would have been fascinating to have seen him develop this style; it clearly held no real appeal for him. Interestingly Paul had almost the reverse approach; preferring to express himself through a procession of imaginary folk going about their day to day lives checking parking meters or staging a gunfight in a wild west saloon or whatever... he rarely switched on the intimate "personal" light, but when he did (in all its spiteful, seething glory - "I'm Looking Through You" for example) the results were powerful and riveting.

John was always best when you sensed the imprint of McCartney; Paul invariably shone when Lennon's aura was present but they dovetailed together so brilliantly partly because, in the end, they at times approached songwriting from entirely opposite directions.

Logged

nimrod

I would agree nim that John sometimes populated his songs with the occasional (usually outlandish/incredible) character but you'll notice they usually tended to make brief - sometimes fleeting (a single line) - cameo appearances, whereas Paul could construct an entire song about someone else (often believable/mundane personalities) and the minutiae of their lives, however bleak or humdrum ("Eleanor Rigby", "Another Day", "She's Leaving Home", "Mr Bellamy" etc). John's characters were often just a passport into a realm of free association stream of consciousness which left the character itself behind ("Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds").

Off the top of my head I cannot readily call to mind any complete self contained story in the third person penned by John, unless you consider those disguised real life examples (we all know "Sexy Sadie" was really the Maharishi - even Mr Kite had been a real circus act and the song was simply cribbed off a poster in a moment of boredom)... as Lennon himself once pointed out: "I write about me because I know me." Perhaps "Mustard" and "Pam" were the closest he came to fleshing out dreamt up people, and whilst he seemed to dismiss them as fillers it would have been fascinating to have seen him develop this style; it clearly held no real appeal for him. Interestingly Paul had almost the reverse approach; preferring to express himself through a procession of imaginary folk going about their day to day lives checking parking meters or staging a gunfight in a wild west saloon or whatever... he rarely switched on the intimate "personal" light, but when he did (in all its spiteful, seething glory - "I'm Looking Through You" for example) the results were powerful and riveting.

John was always best when you sensed the imprint of McCartney; Paul invariably shone when Lennon's aura was present but they dovetailed together so brilliantly partly because, in the end, they at times approached songwriting from entirely opposite directions.

Yes good points MM, Sexy Sadie, She Said She Said and Dr Robert were based on real people, I can see what you mean, Paul would construct a whole personna

Interestingly Paul had almost the reverse approach; preferring to express himself through a procession of imaginary folk going about their day to day lives checking parking meters or staging a gunfight in a wild west saloon or whatever... he rarely switched on the intimate "personal" light, but when he did (in all its spiteful, seething glory - "I'm Looking Through You" for example) the results were powerful and riveting.

John was openly dismissive of Paul's made up stories. As Mr Mustard says he wanted to write from within. I wonder what he'd make of Paul's more recent stuff which seems to be plumbing the personal vein quite well.

Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but your comments about the blues don't show any empathy towards British teenagers' regard for black music in the 50s and early 60s, but then you probably had to be John, Paul, Mick or Keith's age. Those ten years make SUCH a difference, it might as well be a hundred years.

A word of advice next time you should run into Eric, don't start with the gambit, 'Never liked any of those old black guys doing blues music, it didn't really begin for me until you did it.' There's just the slightest chance 'he' might take offence.

Logged

nimrod

A word of advice next time you should run into Eric, don't start with the gambit, 'Never liked any of those old black guys doing blues music, it didn't really begin for me until you did it.' There's just the slightest chance 'he' might take offence.

of all the things in life I have that need worrying about, upsetting Eric Clapton is very near the bottom of the list